NOTICE
*********************************************************
NOTICE
*********************************************************
This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect.
If the original document contained--
* Footnotes
* Boldface & Italics
--this information is missing in this version
The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed
too.
If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect
version.
For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file
how2ftp.
File how2ftp (.txt & .wp) is in directory
/pub/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/
*****************************************************************
********
FCC 96-27
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of
Amendment of Part 90 of the )
Commission's Rules To Provide )
for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band ) PR Docket No. 89-552
by the Private Land Mobile )
Radio Service )
)
Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332)
of the Communications Act ) GN Docket No. 93-252
)
Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services)
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: January 26, 1996 Released: January 26, 1996
By the Commission:
I. SUMMARY
1. In this Order, we adopt a procedure that will enable 220 MHz licensees to modify
their licenses to relocate their authorized base stations to currently unauthorized locations.
Under this procedure, licensees with base stations authorized inside any Designated Filing
Area (DFA) will be permitted to relocate their base stations up to one-half the distance over
120 kilometers (km) toward any authorized co-channel base station, to a maximum distance of
8 km. Licensees with base stations authorized outside the boundaries of any DFA will be
permitted to relocate their base stations up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward any
authorized co-channel base station, to a maximum distance of 25 km, so long as they do not
locate their base station more than 8 km inside the boundaries of any DFA. A licensee will
be permitted to relocate its base station less than 120 km from the base station of a co-
channel licensee or more than one-half the distance over 120 km toward the base station of a
co-channel licensee only with the consent of that licensee.
2. We also extend the current February 2, 1996, construction deadline to March 11,
1996 for all non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees that elect to construct their base station at
their currently authorized location, and to August 15, 1996, for all licensees granted authority
to modify their licenses to relocate their base stations. Licensees seeking authority to modify
their authorizations to relocate their base stations will be required to file, by March 11, 1996,
a statement of their intention to file an application requesting such modification, and will be
required to file a modification application by no later than May 1, 1996. We believe that the
procedures adopted in this Order will provide existing 220 MHz licensees flexibility to
complete construction of their systems and provide service. At the same time, we believe our
decisions will not unreasonably impair the opportunity of potential competitors to obtain
licenses in the 220 MHz service.
II. INTRODUCTION; BACKGROUND
3. The 220-222 MHz radio service (220 MHz) was established in April 1991, with the
adoption of a Report and Order in PR Docket No. 89-552. The Commission began accepting
applications for 220 MHz licenses on May 1, 1991, and on May 24, 1991, after receiving over
59,000 applications, imposed a freeze on the filing of all initial and modification applications
for the 220 MHz service -- a freeze that remains in effect today. Since then, we have issued
authorizations to approximately 3,800 licensees to operate ``non-nationwide'' 220 MHz
stations. A number of 220 MHz licensees have asked to be permitted to file modification
applications to relocate their stations to currently unauthorized sites. In response, we released,
on August 29, 1995, the 220 MHz Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding
(Fourth Notice), proposing a procedure to enable existing licensees in the 220 MHz service to
seek modification of their authorizations to relocate their base stations.
4. While we are ordinarily reluctant to open a ``license modification only'' filing
window, where the applications of initial applicants would not be accepted, we recognize that
the 220 MHz service is unique. Shortly after we began processing 220 MHz applications, a
court case was brought against the Commission's 220 MHz licensing procedures that
effectively placed all of the more than 3,000 authorizations we granted in doubt for nearly a
two-year period, and the uncertainty with respect to the finality of the Commission's grant of
their licenses caused many licensees to refrain from constructing their stations. Following the
settlement of the case in March 1994, the deadline for licensees to construct their systems and
place them in operation was extended on four separate occasions to allow licensees sufficient
time to construct their systems. However, because several years have passed since 220 MHz
licensees filed their applications for which licenses were granted, many licensees have found
that, for various unforeseen reasons, they are unable to construct at their authorized locations.
In light of these circumstances, we are adopting a modification procedure. This procedure
will provide these licensees an opportunity to construct their radio stations and offer mobile
communications service to the public. We believe that the procedure we adopt today will also
increase the number of potential users of the 5 kHz narrowband radio equipment and thus
help to promote the development and implementation of this spectrally efficient technology.
At the same time, because the permissible modifications are limited, we believe that potential
competitors desiring to obtain licenses in the 220 MHz service will not be adversely affected.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Modification Procedure
1. Proposal
5. In the Fourth Notice we observed that we had never formally defined a ``service
area'' for non-nationwide 220 MHz station licenses. We indicated, however, that we had, in
the 220 MHz Report and Order, provided 120 km co-channel protection for non-nationwide
220 MHz stations based on the provision of 10 dB protection to the stations' 38 dBuV/m field
strength contour, and had determined that stations operating at maximum power and antenna
height would ``produce a service area with a 38 dBu contour at about 45 kilometers (28
miles) . . . .'' We thus advanced a modification proposal in the Fourth Notice to define the
edge of a licensee's existing service area to be the predicted 38 dBuV/m field strength contour
resulting from transmissions from the licensee's authorized base station, and to allow a
licensee to relocate its base station so long as transmissions from a relocated base station do
not exceed a predicted field strength of 38 dBuV/m at that contour. We also proposed that a
licensee seeking to relocate its base station would obtain a ``service area authorization,'' that
under that authorization a licensee's relocated base station would be designated as the
licensee's ``primary'' station, and that a licensee would be permitted to construct additional,
``fill-in'' stations within its existing service contour so long as the transmissions from such
stations do not exceed a predicted field strength of 38 dBuV/m at the contour. We reasoned
that this proposal would enable a licensee to relocate its base station and continue to serve the
geographic area that it is currently authorized to serve. We also indicated that this proposal
would avoid mutually exclusive situations with ``new applicants and other licensees seeking
modifications.''
2. Comments
6. Commenters generally oppose the Commission's modification proposal, arguing
that it is unfair to existing 220 MHz licensees, and does not provide 220 MHz licensees with
the same opportunities afforded licensees in other mobile services to modify their licenses.
In its comments, AMTA suggests an alternative modification procedure that it believes ``will
better effectuate the FCC's avowed objective of prompt provision of service.'' AMTA's
proposal is to allow licensees to ``relocate their facilities a maximum of one-half the distance
over 120 km toward any co-channel licensee to a maximum of 35 km. Parties proposing
modifications resulting in less than 120 km separation would be accepted only with the
consent of the co-channel licensee(s), as evidenced in a letter submitted concurrently with the
application. Any modification that did not meet that standard would be considered defective
and dismissed outright.''
7. AMTA asserts that its proposal ``eliminates any possibility of mutually exclusive
applications,'' accommodates the needs of 220 MHz licensees in more rural areas, provides
``a fast and efficient method of processing modification requests . . . ,'' and will ``serve the
critical objective of delivering a vital service to the American public on a timely basis.''
Several commenters express support for the AMTA proposal. Johnson indicates that it could
support a move of less than 35 km, Incomco proposes that the Commission allow a move of
30 km, and PCIA, noting that ``a modification of 35 km appears to result in the provision of
service by the licensee of an entirely different area,'' suggests that the Commission adopt the
AMTA proposal but limit the maximum modification distance to 25 km.
3. Decision
8. Commenters claim that many of the base station locations requested by 220 MHz
applicants in their 1991 applications are, for various reasons, unavailable or not usable.
Recognizing that some of these claims of unavailability or infeasibility constitute a reasonable
basis for modification, we believe that such licensees should be given the opportunity to seek
authorization at alternate, nearby locations so that they may be able to provide
communications services in the geographic area for which they originally applied. We are
persuaded, by the record that the modification proposal in the Fourth Notice will not provide
licensees with adequate flexibility to relocate their base stations, especially in rural areas, and
therefore we believe we should adopt an alternative plan. However, we have a number of
concerns about AMTA's proposal. Specifically, we are not convinced that licensees need to
have the ability to move 35 km (or within an area of approximately one million acres) to find
an alternative site. We believe that alternative site locations can be found within a smaller
geographic area -- particularly in urban areas where there are a multiplicity of base station
sites. Moreover, we are concerned that if we allow licensees to move such large distances,
they will be able to serve entirely different geographic areas than those for which they were
originally licensed. This in turn may unreasonably impair the opportunity of potential
competitors to obtain licenses in the 220 MHz service.
9. Because of the concerns we have noted about the AMTA proposal we will adopt a
different approach.
We will afford non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees the opportunity to relocate their authorized
base stations by filing modification applications under the following procedure:
(1) A licensee with an authorized base station located in a DFA will be
permitted to relocate its base station up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward
any co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station, to a maximum distance of 8
km.
(2) A licensee with an authorized base station not located in a DFA may
relocate its base station up to one-half the distance over 120 km toward any co-channel
licensee's initially authorized base station, to a maximum distance of 25 km, so long
as it does not locate its base station more than 8 km inside of any DFA (i.e., not more
than 8 km from the nearest DFA boundary line).
(3) The application of a licensee proposing a modification to relocate its base
station at least 120 km from each co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station
but more than one-half the distance over 120 km toward the base station of a co-
channel licensee will be accepted by the Commission only with the consent of that co-
channel licensee, as evidenced in a letter submitted concurrently with the modification
application.
(4) The application of a licensee proposing a modification resulting in less than
120 km separation from a co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station will be
accepted by the Commission only with the consent of that co-channel licensee, as
evidenced in a letter submitted concurrently with the modification application.
(5) Any modification application that does not meet these standards will be
considered defective and dismissed.
All licensees applying for modification of their authorization must also ensure that they
comply with all applicable technical and operational rules (e.g., Section 90.723(d) and Section
90.729 of the Commission's Rules).
10. We believe that this modification procedure will enable 220 MHz licensees to
provide service in the geographic area they were authorized to serve pursuant to their initial
application, while accommodating their need to relocate their base stations for technical or
other legitimate reasons. In addition, we believe that our decision to permit Phase I licensees
to modify their licenses in the circumstances described in this Order, without subjecting such
license modifications to potential competing applications, serves the public interest because of
the unique circumstances that have surrounded our efforts to license the 220 MHz service
since 1991, and because the procedures we establish in this Order will help expedite the
provision of 220 MHz service to the public. Finally, we also believe that this procedure fairly
balances the needs of existing licensees with the rights of future 220 MHz licensees by
ensuring that both existing and future 220 MHz licensees will be able to provide service to
the public as expeditiously as possible. We have chosen DFAs to delineate the areas in
which 25 km relocations are permissible, as well as the areas in which 8 km relocations are
permissible, because DFAs have been used in the context of wireless services to approximate
the Nation's top 50 markets. We note that we have successfully used DFAs in implementing
the initial licensing of the 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) band. Since we have
concluded in this Order that different rules are necessary to govern permissible relocations of
base stations in urban areas, we believe it is appropriate to employ a tool to define the
boundaries of these urban areas. We have concluded that DFAs will serve effectively as such
a tool.
11. While we believe that this decision will accommodate the needs of most 220 MHz
licensees that need to relocate their base stations, we recognize that in certain areas of the
Nation it is possible that the technical characteristics of base station sites available under our
relocation procedure may be considerably inferior to the technical characteristics of currently
licensed sites and sites that may exist at nearby, more elevated locations. Such a scenario
could exist, for example, in the Los Angeles area, with the city's close proximity to several
mountain ranges, and in the Seattle area. Because of their unique terrain features, we have
historically treated licensees authorized to serve these areas differently than we have treated
licensees authorized elsewhere in the Nation. For example, under Subpart S of Part 90 of our
Rules, we provide 105-mile co-channel protection for licensees operating at sites in various
mountains, while providing only 70-mile protection at all other locations. We therefore
believe that it would be appropriate to entertain waiver requests by licensees authorized in the
Los Angeles and Seattle areas, as well as any other urban areas with comparable terrain
features, to relocate their stations to sites at higher elevations that may be situated more than 8
km (or 25 km, for licensees authorized outside DFAs) from their authorized location. A
licensee seeking such a waiver of Section 90.753 of our Rules must provide (1) a showing
that the terrain in question does, in fact, present unique technical and operational problems;
and (2) a technical analysis demonstrating that in relocating its base station to its desired
location at a higher elevation, the licensee will provide service to substantially the same
geographic area it was authorized to serve pursuant to its initial application.
12. In addition, we note that there are five groups of applications (totalling 34
applications) that were filed on the last day 220 MHz applications were accepted in May
1991. These applications remain pending before the Commission. These applications are
mutually exclusive with one another and, in each of the five groups, the applicants have
requested the same base station locations. How these 34 applications are to be ultimately
processed is a matter raised in the context of the Third Notice. Prior to reaching decisions
in that proceeding, we will not take any action in this Order that would affect the rights of
these applicants, either positively or negatively, to be licensed, or, once licensed, to take
advantage of the relocation options we are affording other existing 220 MHz licensees. Our
analysis indicates that if we were to allow certain existing 220 MHz licensees, located
between 120 km and 170 km from one of the five base station locations, to relocate under our
modification procedure as though these pending applications did not exist, the licensees
granted licenses at these locations, once authorized, would not be able to relocate their base
stations under the procedure. We will therefore require the following licensees to ensure that,
in seeking relocation of their base stations pursuant to this Order, they comply with our
modification procedure by protecting a possible co-channel station at the following locations.
By taking this action, we emphasize that we are not prejudging the ultimate disposition of the
pending applications.
þ The following licensees must protect a possible co-channel licensee at coordinates N
30.5221, W 083.2036:
Licensee (Call Sign)Distance to Coordinates (km)
WPCB732 163.87
WPCW990 163.87
þ The following licensees must protect a possible co-channel licensee at coordinates N
36.3628, W 121.0951:
Licensee (Call Sign)Distance to Coordinates (km)
WPCY266 140.77
WPCA288 140.77
WPCV737 140.90
WPCX490 140.77
WPCW812 140.90
WPCX487 140.77
WPBU519 140.77
WPBZ605 154.53
WPCW456 154.53
WPCX473 163.16
WPCY621 123.67
WPCK365 123.67
WPCR214 123.67
WPCX477 165.01
WPCW482 156.40
WPCJ969 168.09
WPCX469 157.27
þ The following licensees must protect a possible co-channel licensee at coordinates N
42.1551, W 089.0155:
Licensee (Call Sign)Distance to Coordinates (km)
WPBU711 123.19
WPCM336 123.19
WPCX791 123.19
WPCD923 123.45
WPCA452 120.23
WPCT282 126.45
WPCK616 130.69
WPCA720 125.51
WPCA717 125.51
WPCA301 152.08
WPDG617 143.76
WPCV785 152.08
WPDH432 143.76
WPCB933 143.76
WPDR932 123.19
þ The following licensees must protect a possible co-channel licensee at coordinates N
33.2753, W 080.5642:
Licensee (Call Sign)Distance to Coordinates (km)
WPCC592 126.82
WPCQ606 126.82
WPBR454 137.48
WPCK496 158.29
WPCP569 158.29
WPDG323 163.37
þ The following licensees must protect a possible co-channel licensee at coordinates N
35.0658, W 078.5558:
Licensee (Call Sign)Distance to Coordinates (km)
WPCD332 138.40
WPCV776 136.08
WPCW524 131.16
Licensees with authorized base stations identified above as being located more than 136 km
from a protected base station site and located in a DFA are still restricted to relocations of no
greater than 8 km.
B. Licensees Operating Under Special Temporary Authority
1. Proposal
13. In the Fourth Notice, we proposed that licensees who have obtained Special
Temporary Authority (STA), have constructed facilities, and are operating stations at their
STA sites would be accommodated by our modification proposal. We proposed that
licensees who seek permanent authorization at their STA sites would be required to comply
with our modification proposal.
2. Comments
14. Incomco asks that we should ``at the very least allow 220 MHz licensees that
have constructed to continue to provide service to the area they now have authorization,
whether by license or STA, to serve.'' Robert Fay argues that we should provide
consideration to licensees operating under STAs who have constructed and are ``carrying
legitimate loading on these systems,'' noting that the proposal made in the Fourth Notice
does not provide ``sufficient latitude for incumbent licensees and jeopardizes the licensee's
investment and ability to continue serving the public . . . .''
3. Decision
15. A number of 220 MHz licensees have obtained STAs to operate base stations at
alternative locations. Some of these licensees may currently be operating or planning to
operate at locations at which they would not be able to operate under our modification
procedure. Due to the unique circumstances of the 220 MHz service that we have described
in this Order, we do not believe it would be appropriate to require licensees that are
currently providing service to the public to discontinue operation. Therefore, any licensee that
has been granted an STA to operate at an alternative site and certifies, in accordance with the
requirements of this Order, that it has constructed its base station and has placed it in
operation, or commenced service at that site by the adoption date of this Order, will be
permitted to seek permanent authorization at the site, in accordance with the procedures for
filing modification applications established in Section III.D, infra, regardless of whether
locating at its STA site is in strict conformance with the relocation distance limitations
prescribed in our modification procedure.
16. For the same reasons, we will provide similar relief to licensees that are in the
process of constructing their base station at their STA site. Such licensees will be permitted
to seek permanent authorization at their STA site, in accordance with the procedures for filing
modification applications established in Section III.D, infra, regardless of whether locating
their station at its STA site is in strict conformance with the relocation distance limitations
prescribed in our modification procedure, if they certify that they had taken delivery of their
base station transceiver on or before the adoption date of this Order. A licensee seeking
permanent authorization at its STA site under either of these conditions must ensure that it
complies with all applicable technical and operational rules (e.g., Section 90.723 and Section
90.729 of the Commission's Rules).
C. Definition of Modifications as ``Minor''
17. The Commission decided not to adopt any rule in the CMRS Third Report and
Order as to what would be considered a minor modification of an authorization for a CMRS
license in the 220 MHz service. In the Fourth Notice, however, we tentatively concluded that
defining modifications under our proposal as ``minor'' was consistent with our treatment of
other CMRS services. Vega contends that ``no application proposing any technical changes
to facilities should be deemed minor'' and that ``any application change to 220 MHz service
should be deemed major.'' We disagree and find that applications filed under our
modification procedure do, in fact, qualify as ``minor'' modifications under our CMRS rules.
18. Our discussion in the CMRS Third Report and Order regarding the permissibility
of minor modifications for Part 90 licensees in general expressed our intent to ``allow minor
modification to existing CMRS systems in Part 90 services to be made on a permissive basis,
to the extent practicable.'' Because our 220 MHz modification procedure will result neither
in a change to the protection afforded to co-channel 220 MHz licensees nor in mutually
exclusive situations among 220 MHz licensees seeking station modification, we believe that
these modifications fall within the definition of minor and the procedure is consistent with the
policies set forth in the CMRS proceedings to allow such modifications for Part 90 licensees
when they are practicable and do not have an impact on other licensees. We therefore
conclude that modification applications filed by 220 MHz licensees under our procedure can
and should be considered minor. As indicated in the CMRS Third Report and Order, minor
modification applications are not subject to competing, initial applications, Public Notice
requirements, or Petitions to Deny.
D. Licensing Procedures and Construction Requirements
1. Proposal
19. In the Fourth Notice, we proposed that a 220 MHz licensee that desired to
relocate its base station under our proposed modification procedure would be required to file a
modification application shortly after the adoption of the present Order, and that a licensee
granted a modification authorization would be given four months from the grant of the
authorization to construct and begin operation of its relocated base station.
2. Comments
20. Commenters generally express support for the 4-month construction deadline
extension for a licensee that is relocating its base station. In a letter to Mr. Ralph Haller,
Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, on November 1, 1995, AMTA
subsequently requested that the Commission extend the then-current December 31, 1995
deadline for 220 MHz licensees to construct their stations and place them in operation to a
date 120 days after the effective date of the Commission's Order in this proceeding. Vega
proposes a 12-month extension of the deadline, noting that while the four-month modification
period is ``helpful,'' it ``falls short of providing the necessary lead way for a modified facility
to obtain authorization and initiate construction before the four-month expiration date
occurs.''
3. Decision
21. The current deadline for non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees to construct and
operate their base station is February 2, 1996. With the adoption and release of this Order
occurring close to this February date, we believe that it is appropriate to give licensees
sufficient time to decide whether they want to relocate their base station under our
modification procedure, and then to construct their base station and begin operation. We will
therefore extend the construction deadline for all non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees that
intend to construct their base station at their currently authorized location to March 11, 1996.
For licensees that elect to modify their authorization to relocate their base station, the deadline
shall be August 15, 1996.
22. We will begin to accept modification applications from licensees seeking to
relocate their base stations 30 days after publication of the summary of this Order in the
Federal Register. The deadline for filing modification applications will be May 1, 1996. If a
licensee does not construct its base station and place it in operation, or commence service, at
its currently authorized location on or before March 11, 1996 and, instead, chooses to seek
modification of its authorization to relocate its base station, it must inform us, on or before
March 11, 1996 of its intention to seek a license modification. Otherwise its authorization
will cancel automatically at the close of March 11, 1996. Because we recognize that the
relatively short time period between the release of this Order and the March 11, 1996 date
may not be sufficient to enable licensees to evaluate the decisions we reach in the Order,
acquire an alternative base station site, and perform the necessary technical analysis needed to
file a modification application, we will permit licensees to submit a letter during the period
beginning 30 days after publication of the summary of this Order in the Federal Register, but
no later than March 11, 1996, certifying to the Commission their intent to file an application
to modify their authorization to relocate their base station. This letter will serve to extend a
licensee's authorization past March 11, 1996, even if the licensee has not yet identified and
secured an alternate site. We will then allow licensees to file their modification applications
requesting relocation of their base station no later than May 1, 1996. If a licensee files a
letter indicating its intent to file a modification application and does not file such an
application on or before May 1, 1996, the licensee's existing authorization will cancel
automatically unless the licensee had constructed its base station at its initially authorized
location and placed it in operation, or commenced service, on or before March 11, 1996.
23. With the deadline to construct its base station and place it in operation, or
commence service, by August 15, 1996, a licensee seeking relocation of its base station that
files a modification application on or about March 11, 1996 will have approximately 4 months
after the grant of its application to meet this deadline -- assuming the grant of its application
is made within approximately a 30-day period after filing. This time period is consistent with
our proposal in the Fourth Notice, generally supported by commenters, to give licensees 4
months after the grant of their modified authorization to construct their base station and place
it in operation, or commence service. However, to ensure that licensees are provided an
adequate construction period, we will extend the deadline for a licensee to construct its station
and place it in operation, or commence service, beyond August 15, 1996, by the number of
days after June 1, 1996, that pass before a licensee's timely filed modification application is
actually granted.
24. We note that Vega has requested that licensees granted license modifications be
given a 12-month extension of their construction deadline. While a 12-month construction
period is appropriate for licensees obtaining an initial authorization in order to give such
licensees an opportunity to accomplish the various activities necessary to place a mobile radio
system in operation, or commence service, after locating a base station site (e.g., selecting an
equipment vendor, seeking necessary financing, etc.), most non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees
were initially authorized by 1993. As such, we believe that they should have, by now,
undertaken many of these actions and that the period of approximately 6 months that follows
the release of this Order will then provide licensees a sufficient amount of time to place their
system in operation, or commence service. Similarly, we conclude that our adopted
construction deadline extension obviates the need for an extension of the type requested by
AMTA in its November 1, 1995, letter. To the extent AMTA seeks extension of the
construction deadline for all licensees, we have concluded that there is not sufficient
justification in the record to warrant extension beyond March 11, 1996, in the case of
licensees who do not provide any evidence that they need to relocate their base station.
25. In the case of licensees that have not filed, on or before March 11, 1996, either a
modification application requesting relocation of their base stations or a letter indicating their
intent to file a modification application to relocate their base station, we will transmit a letter
to such licensees instructing them to confirm that they have constructed their base station at
their initially authorized location and have placed it in operation, or commenced service, by
March 11, 1996.
26. If a licensee elects to construct its base station and place it in operation, or
commence service, at its initially authorized location on or before March 11, 1996, and also
seeks to modify its authorization to relocate the station, its construction deadline will be
considered to be met if it constructs its base station at its originally authorized location and
places it in operation, or commences service, on or before March 11, 1996, and it will be
given until August 15, 1996, to construct and place in operation its base station, or commence
service, at its new station location. If the application for modification of any licensee seeking
relocation of its base station is denied for any reason, that licensee's existing authorization
will cancel automatically unless the licensee has constructed its base station at its initially
authorized location and placed it in operation, or commenced service, by March 11, 1996.
27. The application of a licensee seeking relocation of its base station should include
the following:
(1) A Form 600 requesting station modification, and providing all applicable information.
(2) Certification that the location of the proposed base station is in conformance with the
modification procedures adopted in this proceeding, or a letter evidencing consent of
a co-channel licensee that the licensee may be authorized less than 120 km from the
co-channel licensee or more than one-half the distance over 120 km toward the base
station of a co-channel licensee.
(3) For licensees with STAs (if applicable, and as provided in Section III.B, supra),
certification that (a) the licensee has constructed its base station and placed it in
operation, or commenced service, at its STA site on or before the adoption date of
this Order; or (b) the licensee had taken delivery of its base station transceiver on or
before the adoption date of this Order.
(4) Certification that the licensee has constructed its base station and placed it in
operation, or commenced service, at its initially authorized location on or before
March 11, 1996 (if applicable).
28. After August 15, 1996, we will transmit a letter to those licensees that have
applied for modification of their license and have not certified that they have constructed their
base station and placed it in operation, or commenced service, at their initially authorized
location on or before March 11, 1996, asking confirmation that they have constructed their
base station at their modified base station location and have placed it in operation, or
commenced service, on or before August 15, 1996. Licensees granted modification of their
authorization to relocate their base station will be issued a new station authorization. That
authorization will contain the coordinates of the licensee's relocated base station site, as well
as the coordinates of its initial base station site (as the latter are the coordinates upon which
the location of the licensee's relocated base station site is based).
29. We provide the following timetable identifying various dates relevant to non-
nationwide 220 MHz licensees:
NON-NATIONWIDE 220 MHz LICENSEE CONSTRUCTION
DEADLINES AND OTHER DATES
Date
Action
30 days after publication of
summary of Second Report and
Order in Federal Register
þ Modification applications may be filed.
þ Letter certifying licensee's intent to file modification
application may be filed.
March 11, 1996
þ Construction deadline for non-nationwide 220 MHz
licensees that elect to construct their base station at
their currently authorized location.
þ Deadline for acceptance of letter certifying licensee's
intent to file modification application.
May 1, 1996
þ Deadline for acceptance of modification applications.
August 15, 1996
þ Construction deadline for non-nationwide 220 MHz
licensees that elect to modify their authorization to
relocate their base station.
E. Miscellaneous Issues
1. Meeting the Construction and Operation Requirement
30. Section 90.725(f) the Commission's Rules currently specifies that non-nationwide
220 MHz licensees must construct their base station on all authorized channels and place their
station in operation within a specified time period or their license ``cancels automatically.''
When the rules for the 220 MHz service were adopted in 1991, the term ``placed in
operation'' was defined in Section 90.155 of the Rules, which indicated that a base station is
not considered ``placed in operation'' unless at least one associated mobile station is also
placed in operation. However, since that time, we established the Commercial Mobile Radio
Service, and in the CMRS Third Report and Order we decided that Part 90 CMRS licensees
would be required to ``commence service to subscribers by the end of their construction
period,'' with ``service to subscribers'' defined to mean provision of service to at least one
party unaffiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier. We also indicated
that all Private Mobile Radio Service (PMRS) licensees and reclassified Part 90 CMRS
licensees that are grandfathered as PMRS providers until August 10, 1996, would continue to
be subject to the existing Part 90 requirements for placing stations in operation, and that the
mobiles they placed in operation would not have to be unaffiliated with the licensee.
31. Under this decision, ``grandfathered'' CMRS licensees and PMRS licensees would
be required to meet their ``placed in operation'' requirement by satisfying the provisions of
Section 90.155 of the Rules and all ``non-grandfathered'' CMRS licensees would be required
to meet the ``commencement of service'' requirement as provided under Section 90.167 of the
Rules. However, to eliminate any confusion on the part of 220 MHz licensees as to which
station construction and operation requirement they must follow, we will allow all 220 MHz
licensees to meet their applicable deadline (i.e., March 11, 1996, for licensees constructing
their base station at their initially authorized location, and August 15, 1996, for licensees
granted license modification to relocate their base station) by constructing their base station
and satisfying either the ``placed in operation'' provisions of Section 90.155 or the
``commencement of service'' provisions of Section 90.167.
2. AMTS Base Station Receivers
32. Under Section 90.723(d) of the Rules, base station receivers of 220 MHz licensees
operating on the ``Sub-Band A'' channels (i.e., Channels 1-40) are geographically separated
from base station transmitters of 220 MHz licensees operating 200 kHz or less removed in
``Sub-Band B'' (i.e., Channels 161-200) in accordance with a Table in Section 90.723(d) of
the Rules. The Table prescribes the power limitations under which Sub-Band B transmitters
may operate when located various distances from Sub-Band A receivers.
33. Orion asks that we provide the same type of adjacent channel protection to base
station receivers operating in the Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS)
in the 216-220 MHz band as we afford to base receive stations operating in Sub-Band A of
the 220-222 MHz band. Orion notes instances of severe interference to an AMTS base station
receiver operating in the upper portion of the 216-220 MHz from a nearby 220 MHz
transmitter operating in the lower channels of the 220-222 MHz band (i.e., Channels 1-40).
Orion therefore requests that Section 90.723(d) of the Rules be modified to require that base
station transmitters utilizing channels assigned from Sub-Band A be geographically separated
from AMTS base station receivers utilizing channels within 200 kHz of the Sub-Band A
channel.
34. We do not believe that the current record is adequate to determine the merits of
Orion's requested modification to the Rules. We therefore conclude that it would be more
appropriate to consider Orion's request as part of a separate proceeding. We invite Orion to
submit its request for relief in the form of a Petition for Rulemaking.
3. 220 MHz Licensees Near the Canadian Border
35. In the Third Notice we extended the construction deadline for Phase I 220 MHz
licensees located within Line A of the Canadian border until 12 months after the signing of an
agreement with Canada on the sharing of 220-222 MHz channels near the border. Since we
did not amend the appropriate rules at the time of the adoption of the Third Notice we will
take the opportunity to do so in this proceeding.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS; ORDERING CLAUSES
36. This Report and Order contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to
comment on the information collection contained in this Report and Order, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Comments should address: (1)
whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the
functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
37. Written comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information
collections are due February 23, 1996. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on
or before March 1, 1996. In addition to filing comments with the Acting Secretary, a copy of
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Dorothy
Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington
D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk
Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W.., Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the Internet
to fain_5@al.eop.gov.
38. IT IS ORDERED that the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as required by
Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and as set forth in Appendix B, IS
ADOPTED.
39. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority of Sections 4(i),
303(d), 303(r) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i),
303 (d), 303(r) and 332, Part 90 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 90, IS
AMENDED as set forth in Appendix C effective 30 days after publication of the summary of
this Order in the Federal Register.
40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees MAY FILE
a letter with the Acting Secretary of the Commission indicating their intent to file an
application to modify their authorizations to relocate their base stations 30 days after
publication of the summary of this Order in the Federal Register, but no later than March 11,
1996.
41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees MAY FILE
applications to modify their authorizations to relocate their base stations 30 days after
publication of the summary of this Order in the Federal Register, but no later than May 1,
1996.
42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for non-nationwide 220 MHz
licensees to construct their base station and place it in operation, or commence service, IS
EXTENDED from February 2, 1996, to March 11, 1996, and that the effective date of this
extension is the adoption date of this Order. The current deadline for non-nationwide 220
MHz licensees to construct and operate their base stations is February 2, 1996. With the
adoption and release of this Order occurring within 30 days of that date, there is good cause
to order this rule change to take effect upon the adoption of this Order.
43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that non-nationwide 220 MHz licensees that file a
modification application on or before March 11, 1996, or a letter in accordance with this
Order indicating an intent to modify their authorization to relocate their base station SHALL
BE GRANTED an extension of the deadline to construct their base station and place it in
operation, or commence service, until August 15, 1996, if the modification application is
ultimately granted.
44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request by the American Mobile
Telecommunications Association to extend the December 31, 1995, deadline for non-
nationwide 220 MHz licensees to construct their stations and place them in operation to a date
120 days after the effective date of this Order IS DENIED.
45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Acting Secretary SHALL TRANSMIT a
copy of this Report and Order to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
Acting Secretary
APPENDIX A
Pleadings
Parties Filing Comments
American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)
Comtech Communications, Inc. (Comtech)
Robert A. Fay (Robert Fay)
Incom Communications Corporation (Incomco)
E.F. Johnson (Johnson)
Fred Daniel d/b/a Orion Telecom (Orion)
Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)
Roamer One, Inc. (Roamer One)
SEA, Inc. (SEA)
SMR Advisory Group, L.C. (SMR Advisory Group)
The Richard L. Vega Group (Vega)
Parties Filing Reply Comments
AMTA
Hill & Welch
PCIA
Securicor Radiocom Ltd. (Securicor)
SEA
SMR Advisory Group
US Mobilcomm, Inc. (US Mobilcomm)
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. Need and Purpose of this Action
This action responds to requests by 220 MHz licensees to establish a flexible license
modification procedure that will end a freeze on the acceptance of modification applications
and will give existing 220 MHz licensees the ability to relocate their authorized base stations
to currently unauthorized sites. This action will enhance the competitive potential of 220
MHz services in the commercial mobile radio service marketplace.
II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
No issues were raised in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
III. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
All significant alternatives have been addressed in this Second Report and Order. The
alternative adopted in this decision represents the best balance of providing licensees, many of
whom may be considered small businesses, with the most flexibility and the least regulatory
burden possible. APPENDIX C
Revisions to Commission Rules
47 CFR Part 90 is amended as follows:
PART 90 - PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.
2. Paragraph (f) of Section 90.723 is revised to read as follows:
Section 90.723 Selection and assignment of frequencies.
* * * * *
(f) Except for nationwide assignments, the separation of co-channel base stations shall be 120
kilometers. Except for licensees seeking license modification in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 90.751 and 90.753, shorter separations will be considered on a case-by-
case basis upon submission of a technical analysis indicating that at least 10 dB protection
will be provided to an existing station's 38 dBu signal level contour.
3. Section 90.751 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:
Section 90.751 Minor modifications of non-nationwide licenses.
Licensees granted non-nationwide authorizations from among applications filed on or before
May 24, 1991 (Phase I licensees) will be given an opportunity to seek modification of their
license to relocate their initially authorized base station, i.e., locate their base station at a site
other than its initially authorized location. The conditions under which modifications will be
granted and the procedures for applying for license modifications are described in Sections
90.753, 90.755, and 90.757. For CMRS licensees, these modifications will be treated as
minor modifications in accordance with Section 90.164.
4. Section 90.753 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:
Section 90.753 Conditions of license modification.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), and (c) of this section, a Phase I non-
nationwide licensee may modify its authorization to relocate its authorized base station up to
one-half the distance over 120 km toward any co-channel licensee's initially authorized base
station, to a maximum distance of 8 km.
(b) A Phase I non-nationwide licensee with an authorized base station located outside
a Designated Filing Area (DFA) (see Public Notice, DA 86-173, 52 FR 1302 (January 12,
1987)) may modify its authorization to relocate its authorized base station up to one-half the
distance over 120 km toward any co-channel licensee's initially authorized base station, to a
maximum distance of 25 km, so long as the base station is relocated no more than 8 km
inside of any DFA (i.e., no more than 8 km from the nearest DFA boundary line).
(c) A Phase I non-nationwide licensee that has been granted Special Temporary
Authority (STA) to operate at an alternative base station location may modify its authorization
to seek permanent authorization at that location, regardless of whether locating the station at
the STA site is in strict conformance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, if the licensee certifies that such a modification is in conformance with Sections
90.723 and 90.729 and:
(1) It has constructed its base station and has placed it in operation, or
commenced service, at the STA site on or before January 26, 1996; or
(2) It has taken delivery of its base station transceiver on or before January 26,
1996.
(d) The application of a Phase I non-nationwide licensee proposing a base station
modification resulting in less than 120 km separation from a co-channel licensee's initially
authorized base station will be accepted by the Commission only with the consent of that co-
channel licensee, as evidenced in a letter submitted concurrently with the licensee's
application.
(e) The application of a Phase I non-nationwide licensee proposing a base station
modification resulting in at least a 120 km separation from each co-channel licensee's initially
authorized base station but more than one-half the distance over 120 km toward any co-
channel licensee's initially authorized base station will be accepted by the Commission only
with the consent of that co-channel licensee, as evidenced in a letter submitted concurrently
with the licensee's application.
5. Section 90.755 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:
Section 90.755 Procedures for License Modification.
(a) A Phase I non-nationwide licensee seeking modification of its authorization to
relocate its authorized base station in accordance with the provisions of Section 90.753 must
file the following on or before May 1, 1996:
(1) Form 600 requesting license modification, and providing all applicable
information;
(2) Certification that the location of its proposed base station is in
conformance with the provisions of Section 90.753, or, as provided in Section
90.753(d), a letter evidencing consent of a co-channel licensee that the licensee may be
authorized less than 120 km from the co-channel licensee;
(3) If applicable, the required certification by a licensee with a Special
Temporary Authority, in accordance with Section 90.753(c);
(4) If applicable, certification that the licensee has constructed its base station
and placed it in operation, or commenced service, at its initially authorized location on
or before March 11, 1996.
(b) A licensee seeking modification of its authorization to relocate its base station in
accordance with the provisions of Section 90.753, should file, on or before March 11,
1996, either a modification application, as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, or
a letter certifying to the Commission its intent to file an application to modify its
authorization to relocate its base station. For a licensee that has not constructed its
authorized base station and placed it in operation, or commenced service, by March
11, 1996, this filing will serve to extend the licensee's construction requirement in
accordance with the provisions of Section 90.757.
6. Section 90.757 is added to Subpart T to read as follows:
Section 90.757 Construction requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a Phase I non-nationwide
licensee that is granted modification of its authorization to relocate its base station must
construct its base station and place it in operation, or commence service, on all authorized
channels on or before August 15, 1996, or within 12 months of initial grant date, whichever is
later. The authorization of a licensee that does not construct its base station and place it in
operation, or commence service, by this date, cancels automatically and must be returned to
the Commission.
(b) A Phase I non-nationwide licensee with a base station authorized at a location
north of Line A must construct its base station and place it in operation, or commence service,
on all authorized channels within 12 months of initial grant date, or within 12 months of the
date of the release of the terms of an agreement between the United States and Canadian
governments on the sharing of 220-222 MHz spectrum between the two countries, whichever
is later. The authorization of a licensee that does not construct its base station and place it in
operation, or commence service, by this date, cancels automatically and must be returned to
the Commission.
APPENDIX D
Designated Filing Areas
NEW YORK
Bronx County, New York
Kings County, New York
Nassau County, New York
New York County, New York
Queens County, New York
Richmond County, New York
Bergen County, New Jersey
Essex County, New Jersey
Hudson County, New Jersey
Union County, New Jersey
LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles County, California
Orange County, California
Riverside County, California
Ventura County, California
[The Los Angeles DFA includes only that portion of Riverside County that is north of 33
degrees, 40 minutes North latitude and west of 117 degrees, 20 minutes West longitude.]
CHICAGO
Cook County, Illinois
Lake County, Indiana
PHILADELPHIA
Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
Burlington County, New Jersey
Camden County, New JerseySAN FRANCISCO and SACRAMENTO
Alameda County, California
Contra Costa County, California
Marin County, California
Sacramento County, California
San Francisco County, California
San Mateo County, California
Santa Clara County, California
Santa Cruz County, California
Solano County, California
DETROIT
Macomb County, Michigan
Oakland County, Michigan
Wayne County, Michigan
BOSTON and PROVIDENCE
Bristol County, Massachusetts
Essex County, Massachusetts
Middlesex County, Massachusetts
Norfolk County, Massachusetts
Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Suffolk County, Massachusetts
Kent County, Rhode Island
Providence County, Rhode Island
HOUSTON
Brazoria County, Texas
Fort Bend County, Texas
Galveston County, Texas
Harris County, Texas
Liberty County, Texas
Montomery County, Texas
Waller County, Texas
WASHINGTON DC and BALTIMORE
Washington, District of Columbia
Alexandria (City), Virginia
Arlington County, Virginia
Fairfax (City), Virginia
Fairfax County, Virginia
Falls Church (City), Virginia
Ann Arundel County, Maryland
Baltimore County, Maryland
Baltimore (City), Maryland
Howard County, Maryland
Montgomery County, Maryland
Prince Georges County, Maryland
DALLAS - FORT WORTH
Collin County, Texas
Dallas County, Texas
Denton County, Texas
Ellis County, Texas
Johnson County, Texas
Kaufman County, Texas
Parker County, Texas
Rockwall County, Texas
Tarrant County, Texas
MIAMI
Dade County, Florida
Broward County, Florida
CLEVELAND
Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Geauga County, Ohio
Lake County, Ohio
Medina County, Ohio
ST. LOUIS
Franklin County, Missouri
Jefferson County, Missouri
St. Charles County, Missouri
St. Louis County, Missouri
St. Louis (City), Missouri
Clinton County, Illinois
Jersey County, Illinois
Madison County, Illinois
Monroe County, Illinois
St. Clair County, Illinois
ATLANTA
Barrow County, Georgia
Butts County, Georgia
Cherokee County, Georgia
Clayton County, Georgia
Cobb County, Georgia
Coweta County, Georgia
De Kalb County, Georgia
Douglas County, Georgia
Fayette County, Georgia
Forsyth County, Georgia
Fulton County, Georgia
Gwinnett County, Georgia
Henry County, Georgia
Newton County, Georgia
Paulding County, Georgia
Rockdale County, Georgia
Spalding County, Georgia
Walton County, Georgia
PITTSBURGH
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
Fayette County, Pennsylvania
Washington County, Pennsylvania
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
MINNEAPOLIS
Anoka County, Minnesota
Carver County, Minnesota
Chisago County, Minnesota
Dakota County, Minnesota
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Isanti County, Minnesota
Ramsey County, Minnesota
Scott County, Minnesota
Washington County, Minnesota
Wright County, Minnesota
St. Croix County, Wisconsin
SEATTLE
King County, Washington
Pierce County, Washington
Snohomish County, Washington
SAN DIEGO
San Diego County, California
[The San Diego DFA includes only that portion of San Diego County that is south of 33
degrees, 30 minutes North latitude.]
TAMPA - ST.PETERSBURG
Hernando County, Florida
Hillsborough County, Florida
Pasco County, Florida
Pinellas County, Florida
DENVER
Adams County, Colorado
Arapahoe County, Colorado
Boulder County, Colorado
Denver County, Colorado
Douglas County, Colorado
Jefferson County, Colorado
PHOENIX
Maricopa County, Arizona
CINCINNATI and DAYTON
Butler County, Ohio
Clermont County, Ohio
Hamilton County, Ohio
Montgomery County, Ohio
Warren County, Ohio
Boone County, Ohio
Campbell County, Ohio
Kenton County, Ohio
Dearborn County, Ohio
MILWAUKEE
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
Ozaukee County, Wisconsin
Racine County, Wisconsin
Washington County, Wisconsin
Waukesha County, Wisconsin
KANSAS CITY
Johnson County, Kansas
Leavenworth County, Kansas
Miami County, Kansas
Wyandotte County, Kansas
Cass County, Missouri
Clay County, Missouri
Jackson County, Missouri
Lafayette County, Missouri
Platte County, Missouri
Ray County, Missouri
PORTLAND
Clackamas County, Oregon
Marion County, Oregon
Multnomah County, Oregon
Washington County, Oregon
Yamhill County, Oregon
NEW ORLEANS
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
Orleans Parish, Louisiana
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana
St. Charles Parish, Louisiana
St. John The Babtist Parish, Louisiana
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
COLUMBUS
Franklin County, Ohio
NORFOLK
Chesapeake (City), Virginia
Hampton (City), Virginia
Newport News (City), Virginia
Norfolk (City), Virginia
Portsmouth (City), Virginia
Virginia Beach (City), Virginia
BUFFALO
Erie County, New York
Niagara County, New York
INDIANAPOLIS
Marion County, Indiana
SAN ANTONIO
Bexar County, Texas
Comal County, Texas
Guadaloupe County, Texas
CHARLOTTE
Gaston County, North Carolina
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Union County, North Carolina
York County, North Carolina
HARTFORD
Hartford County, Connecticut
SALT LAKE CITY
Davis County, Utah
Salt Lake County, Utah
Weber County, Utah
ROCHESTER
Livingston County, New York
Monroe County, New York
Ontario County, New York
Wayne County, New York
LOUISVILLE
Bullitt County, Kentucky
Jefferson County, Kentucky
Oldham County, Kentucky
Shelby County, Kentucky
Clark County, Indiana
Floyd County, Indiana
Harrison County, Indiana
OKLAHOMA CITY
Canadian County, Oklahoma
Cleveland County, Oklahoma
Logan County, Oklahoma
McClain County, Oklahoma
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma
MEMPHIS
Shelby County, Tennessee
Tipton County, Tennessee
Crittenden County, Arkansas
De Soto County, Mississippi
BIRMINGHAM
Blount County, Alabama
Jefferson County, Alabama
Shelby County, Alabama
Walker County, Alabama
NASHVILLE
Cheatham County, Tennessee
Davidson County, Tennessee
Dickson County, Tennessee
Robertson County, Tennessee
Rutherford County, Tennessee
Sumner County, Tennessee
Williamson County, Tennessee
Wilson County, Tennessee
GREENSBORO
Forsyth County, North Carolina
Guilford County, North Carolina
ALBANY
Albany County, New York
Greene County, New York
Montgomery County, New York
Rensselaer County, New York
Saratoga County, New York
Schenectady County, New York
ORLANDO
Orange County, Florida
Osceola County, Florida
Seminole County, Florida
HONOLULU
Honolulu County, Hawaii
RICHMOND
Chesterfield County, Virginia
Colonial Heights (City), Virginia
Goochland County, Virginia
Hanover County, Virginia
Henrico County, Virginia
Petersburg (City), Virginia
Powhatan County, Virginia
Richmond (City), Virginia
JACKSONVILLE
Clay County, Florida
DuVal County, Florida
Nassau County, Florida
St. Johns County, Florida
[The Jacksonville DFA includes only those portions of St. Johns and Clay Counties that are
north of 29 degrees, 55 minutes North latitude.]